international higher education umber all...one of the most obvious changes has dealt with the...

INTERNATIONALHIGHEREDUCATIONT H E B O S T O N C O L L E G E C E N T E R F O R I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N

International Issues

2 International Education: Alternatives to the Market Peter Scott

3 Access Means Inequality Philip G. Altbach

5 Asian University Presses in the Digital Age Paul H. Kratoska

7 The Conundrums of MBA Rankings Ricardo Betti

8 Discipline and Institution Commitment: Professorial Views Jesús Francisco Galaz-Fontes

The “Decline” of the Private Sector

10 An International Exploration of Decline in Private Higher Education Daniel C. Levy

12 Decline in Colombia Lina Uribe

13 Ups and Downs in Central and Eastern Europe Snejana Slantcheva-Durst

14 Downturn in Thailand Prachayani Praphamontripong

Focus on India

16 India’s New Accreditation Law Pawan Agarwal

18 Kerala: The Dilemmas of Equality Philip G. Altbach and Eldho Mathews

19 Half-Baked Reforms Philip G. Altbach

Departments

22 New Publications

23 News of the Center

International Higher Education is the quarterly publication of the Center for International Higher Education.

The journal is a reflection of the Center’s mission to en-courage an international per-spective that will contribute to enlightened policy and prac-tice. Through International Higher Education a network of distinguished international scholars offer commentary and current information on key issues that shape higher edu-cation worldwide. IHE is pub-lished in English, Chinese, and Russian. Links to all editions can be found at www.bc.edu/cihe.

Number 61 :: Fall 2010

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N2 International Issues

International Education: Alternatives to the MarketPeter ScottSir Peter Scott is vice chancellor of Kingston University London, United Kingdom, and former editor of the Times Higher Education Supple-ment. E-mail: [email protected].

The widespread assumption that academic mobility and international education are “good things” may need to

be tested periodically—to ensure, first, that the lessons of mass higher education at home have been fully incorpo-rated into concepts of international education; and second, that the even more important lessons of globalization have been factored into policies for international education. It may be insufficient simply to define international educa-tion as a mass activity, characterized by mass flows between countries and continents or large-scale student flows as one of the most dramatic examples of globalization. It is still rare for international education to be discussed on the basis of the growing tide of economic migrants and asylum seek-ers or on the new information and communications tech-nologies that have, in effect, “abolished” centuries-old ideas of time and space.

Mass Higher EducationMass higher education systems, with almost open access, are now the dominant types in almost all advanced societ-ies, as well as the increasing emphasis on considerations of social equity and economic utility. As a result, traditional academic and scientific cultures have been eroded, as more and more study takes place off campus in the community, in the workplace, and in people’s homes. Likewise, research (or, more broadly, knowledge production) has moved out of the library and the laboratory and become a highly dis-tributed activity. Most higher education systems have not simply experienced quantitative growth (in the number of students and institutions) but in addition a qualitative revo-lution, in terms of values and of ethos. The whole habitus of higher education is changing. It has become a social, as much as an academic, enterprise; or, conversely, it has be-come part of the knowledge-services industry—the supply chain of the knowledge economy, producing highly skilled workers and useful knowledge.

Student DemographyOne of the most obvious changes has dealt with the de-mography of students. Modern higher education systems now have mass-student populations, ranging from at least a third to more than half of the relevant age groups. The fact that access to higher education—and especially to elite

universities—is still socially unequal should not be allowed to disguise the scale of the social transformation in higher education. Students are now much more representative of the wider community. They are no longer an elite group, differentiated from the mass of the population. This change of the social base of higher education, of course, reflects the wider transformation in European societies over the past half century—for example, the erosion of older class-based differences, partly as a result of greater social mobility; the decline of traditional “proletarian” industry; and the mass-media culture that embraces us all. A particularly striking aspect of this social transformation is the revolution in gen-der relations and the status of women. Most societies have become much more open and more fluid.

However, the status of international students tends to be different. They are more likely to come from more privi-leged backgrounds than home students. Many also come from societies that have resisted the deep democratization of Europe (as opposed to the shallow democratization of mass-media culture, global brands, and the rest). For some, their experience of studying abroad is a reinforcement of

an already privileged status, although for a minority that ex-perience may also have a radicalizing effect. In some cases their societies, while embracing economic modernization and the most-advanced technologies, have resisted what they see as the social liberalization, even the moral chaos, of the West. As a result, there are often radically different articulations between higher education and society with re-spect to home and international students.

Intellectual BaseThe intellectual base of higher education has been trans-formed as well as its social base. In teaching, problem-based learning and new forms of project-based assessment are now common. All these things are very familiar to home students. But the expectations of many international students—and, even more so, of their parents and others who fund them—can be rather different. They tend to fa-vor more traditional patterns of teaching over more open styles of learning. Some may even associate these more open styles with the alleged moral chaos of the West. They also tend to study a different range of subjects—more likely

Students are now much more represen-

tative of the wider community. They are

no longer an elite group, differentiated

from the mass of the population.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 3International issues

engineering, computing, and business and management and less likely the humanities and the more critical social sciences. As a result divergence may exist between more open learning and critical subjects, preferred by home stu-dents, and more traditional teaching and professional sub-jects favored by international students. A further difference is that the recruitment of international students is typically a market game, while the admission of home students is still much regarded as a public good. These dissonances may prove that the optimistic view needs to be revised of the expansion of national higher education systems and the growth of international education, both as aspects of a powerful form of liberalization. A better description may be of rival forms of liberalization, the social liberalization characteristic of mass-democratic higher education, and the economic free market in higher education that affects inter-national education.

GlobalizationWith regard to mass higher education, too little may be made of its connections—or lack of connections—with, and implications for, international education. In the case of globalization it is possible that too much is made of these connections. At times, a simplistic relationship can be as-sumed: globalization is an irresistible force and the advance of international education is part of that irresistible force. Little consideration is given to the possibility that global-ization is not necessarily such an irresistible force (at any rate in its neoliberal manifestation) or that its connection with international education is best seen as an epiphenom-enon of globalization. There is a tendency to concentrate on this single path of development for globalization—in other words, that the inevitable trajectory is toward free-market capitalism, mass-media culture, global brands, and multi-party democracy. In fact, there are several forms of global-ization, and the future is much more open than the single-path theory suggests.

Even the single-path view of globalization is more com-plex than it appears at first sight. For some people, global-ization offers great opportunities, to pursue global careers; or, if not global careers, to have their still predominantly national careers enhanced by a significant global added-value dimension. For other people, of course, globalization may mean imposed economic migration, the destabilizing of familiar communities and stable societies, and even sep-aration from families and friends. For some institutions, especially the most successful universities in the West, the trend offers equally glittering opportunities—new re-search collaborations with like-minded universities in other countries, the prestige of global-university league tables (as an extension of national institutional hierarchies perhaps eroded by progressive social policies), an alternative in-

come stream if state funding is constrained, and even a new model of entrepreneurialism extendable to the rest of the university. For other institutions, of course, globalization is a threat: their academic vitality is sucked out as their most-promising researchers move abroad and their institutional norms (even their national values) are called into question, as teams from various global agencies prescribe market pol-icies and proscribe alternative strategies. These structural inequalities of free-market globalization will remain even if the winners and losers change. These structural inequali-ties are bred in its bone, part of globalization’s DNA.

There is no single globalization with its centers of pow-er among gleaming corporate skyscrapers in world cities. With many forms of globalization, some violently clash. For example, there are many forms of resistance to free-market globalization—for example, the worldwide environmental movements (and other social movements) that are becom-ing an increasingly powerful force even in old politics. The global networks that have been developed by these new movements are at least both as dense and sophisticated as those of global capitalism. Yet, at times a profound unease rises about establishing connections between alternative forms of globalization and international education (and academic mobility), despite the fact that internationally mo-bile students (and staff) play a key role in developing these new global social movements and forms of political action. Perhaps this role is at least as significant as pious asser-tions about promoting better international understanding or selfish arguments about the contribution of international mobility to the global knowledge economy. It may also be a role that relates much better to the core critical values of the university. An urgent need exists to engage more actively with alternative globalizations and in the process to forge a deeper understanding of international education.

Access Means InequalityPhilip G. AltbachPhilip G. Altbach is Monan University Professor and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. E-mail: [email protected].

It seems a contradiction that access would bring inequal-ity to higher education, but that trend is the usual case.

Students, and institutions, while catering to mass access, provide vastly different quality, facilities, and focus than do elite institutions at the top, and this gulf has widened as access has expanded worldwide. Furthermore, mass higher education has, for a majority of students worldwide,


lowered quality and increased dropout rates. All of these consequences have become inevitable and logical. These ef-fects do not argue against access but rather call for a more realistic understanding of the implications of massification and the steps needed to ameliorate the problems created by dramatic increases in enrollments.

Mass higher education now forms a worldwide phe-nomenon. Enrollments constitute more than 150 million worldwide, having increased by 53 percent in just a decade. Twenty-six percent of the age group now participates in postsecondary education globally, up from 19 percent in 2000. In many of the rich countries, access is over half and in some over 80 percent, and in much of the devel-oping world enrollments are dramatically increasing. This increase in access has been universally hailed—contribut-ing to social mobility for individuals, the expansion of the knowledge economy of nations, and an increase in skill lev-els worldwide. In the first decade of the 21st century, quite likely more students will study in academic institutions than in the previous 10 centuries combined.

Massification has moved largely from the developed countries, which have achieved high participation rates, to developing and some middle-income nations. In fact, the majority of enrollment growth in the coming several de-cades will take place in two countries—China and India. China enrolls about 23 percent and India around 12 percent of the age cohort. The region with the lowest enrollment rate, sub-Saharan Africa, which in 2007 was educating only 6 percent of the age group, is expanding access but has a long way to go.

The Consequences of AccessAccess brings a series of inevitable changes to higher edu-cation systems. The specific impacts and conditions will vary by location, but all countries experience these factors to some extent. Countries that have more financial resourc-es, a strong commitment to postsecondary education, and perhaps a slower growth curve may be less dramatically af-fected than others; but the impact is universal and of great relevance to policymakers and the higher education com-munity.

Student populations not only expand but also become more diverse. Traditionally, universities educated only a small elite—often fewer than 5 percent of the age group. These students came from top-secondary schools and from well-educated and affluent families. Access opens higher education to young people from an array of social class and educational backgrounds, to students from rural back-grounds, and to students who are the first in their families to study at higher education institutions. One of the most dramatic implications of greater access constitutes the ex-pansion of women’s enrollments. Women are now the ma-

jority of students in many countries. Serving students from diverse backgrounds and generally without a high-quality secondary education is a challenge. Serving these students is often more expensive than educating a small elite be-cause tutoring, counseling, and other services are needed but are seldom available. At one time, universities assumed that almost all of the small student populations they were educating had obtained a high-quality secondary education and were prepared for academic study. Expanded access has delivered many students who have neither the academ-ic background nor the ability that was once the norm.

Expanded access obviously requires more facilities. Existing universities and other postsecondary institutions have expanded, new institutions have been built, but sup-ply can seldom keep up with demand. Deterioration in the conditions of study for students is common if not universal. Overcrowding, inadequate libraries and other study facili-ties, and the inability to provide students with the courses needed to graduate constitute familiar circumstances.

The academic profession has been stretched to the breaking point. Close to half of those teaching in postsec-ondary education worldwide possess only a bachelor’s de-gree. Class sizes have increased, and students receive little personal attention from professors. Academic salaries have deteriorated, and many academics must hold more than one job to survive. It is likely that access has produced, on average, a poorer learning environment for students, in part because the academic profession has not grown fast enough to keep up with expansion.

Demand for access has contributed to the rise of pri-vate higher education in many countries. Governments have been unable to fund public-postsecondary institutions to meet expanding enrollments, and the private sector has taken up the slack. In much of Latin America, where pub-lic universities dominated the sector two decades ago, pri-vate institutions now educate half or more of the students. Most of the new private institutions are “demand absorb-ing”—unselective and often poor-quality schools providing a degree and little else. Many are for-profit. First-generation

Access brings a series of inevitable

changes to higher education systems.

The specific impacts and conditions will

vary by location, but all countries experi-

ence these factors to some extent.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 5International Issues

students may be forced to attend these new private schools, which often charge relatively high tuition, because they can-not gain access to the public sector.

Massification has created the demand for quality assur-ance and accreditation, but few countries have been able to set up and enforce effective regimes to ensure appropriate quality standards. This environment means that at least for the present there is little transparency or knowledge about the effectiveness of much of higher education provision, particularly at institutions that serve a mass clientele.

Access growth has meant a significant increase in non-completion rates in higher education. Even in the United States, the country that developed the first mass higher edu-cation system and allocated significant resources to higher education, the proportion has increased significantly of stu-dents who take more than the standard four years to com-plete an undergraduate degree or who do not complete any degree. Many countries are unable to cope with increased demand and routinely “flunk out” a significant proportion of entering students.

Access has increased the cost of higher education—to society, individuals, and families. In much of the world, the increased cost has fallen on those who can least afford it—first-generation students and those from lower-income families. Governments cannot afford to fund access and have increased the cost of study or turned over expansion to the private sector.

The Inevitability of InequalityThe reality of postsecondary education, in an era of access combined with fiscal constraint and ever-increasing costs, is that inequality within higher education systems is here to stay. Most countries have or are creating differentiated sys-tems of higher education that will include different kinds of institutions serving specific needs. This process is inevita-ble and largely positive. However, the research universities at the top of any system tend to serve an elite clientele and have high status, while institutions lower in the hierarchy cater to students who cannot compete for the limited seats at the top. Major and growing differences exist in funding,

quality, and facilities within systems. Given financial and staffing constraints, institutional inequalities will continue. Students will come from more diverse backgrounds and in many ways will be more difficult to serve effectively.

All of these issues constitute a deep contradiction for 21st-century higher education. As access expands, inequali-ties within the higher education system also grow. Condi-tions of study for many students deteriorate. More of them fail to obtain degrees. The economic benefits assumed to accrue to persons with a postsecondary qualification prob-ably decline for many. Access remains an important goal—and an inevitable goal—of higher education everywhere, but it creates many challenges. (This article also appears in Times Higher Education.)

Asian University Presses in the Digital AgePaul H. KratoskaPaul H. Kratoska is managing director, NUS Press, National University of Singapore, Singapore. E-mail: [email protected].

University presses in Asia and the West publish scholar-ly material, with limited commercial appeal, and face

common problems arising from falling sales, rising costs, and the shift to electronic media for teaching materials. However, in North America a large number of presses are competing for a shrinking market, while Asia represents a growing market, especially for English-language publish-ing. Electronic publications have begun to appear in the re-gion, but their effects are difficult to predict.

In 1950, there were more than 60 university presses in North America but just 12 in East Asia, where most scholar-ly publishing was handled by commercial academic press-es. The final decades of the century brought a dramatic up-surge in university publishing in the latter region: China now has more than 110 university presses, Korea more than 70, Japan more than 30, and in Southeast Asia nearly every major university operates a press.

This development came at a time when North Ameri-can university presses were running into serious difficul-ties. Sales had dropped to 500 copies or less per title, and much talk was focused on a crisis in academic publishing. Commercial academic presses responded to the situation by raising prices to $150 or more per copy and selling al-most exclusively to libraries; but university presses, oper-ating as not-for-profit educational publishers, attempted to maintain more affordable prices. To earn additional in-come, some offered trade publications—coffee-table books,

The academic profession has been

stretched to the breaking point. Close

to half of those teaching in postsecond-

ary education worldwide possess only a

bachelor’s degree.


cookbooks, hiking guides, bird-watching manuals, and the like. University publishers also began asking authors to provide subventions to support their books.

Asian TrendsUniversity presses in East Asia operate on a different basis. In China, they are expected to cover a significant portion of their expenses and make a financial contribution to the university. Much of their output forms textbooks and gen-eral readings; and authors of scholarly research works are expected to cover publication costs, generally with funds obtained from university grants. In Japan, university press publications are heavily subsidized by foundations, uni-versity research grants, or government bodies such as the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. In Southeast Asia, university presses tend to follow the American model, relying on a combination of sales and university grants to survive.

The focus of university publishing in East Asia has been changing. While textbooks remain important, re-search publications now make up 80 percent of the output in Japan, and around half in Korea and China. Most of this material is written in Asian languages, which limits sales to the domestic market; but the best titles represent excep-tional scholarship and deserve much wider dissemination.

The top Asian universities now aspire to meet interna-tional standards for research. Their goals are to strength-en the university’s reputation in order to attract research grants and government funding and to have faculty mem-bers develop international visibility. University rankings, such as those produced by the Times Higher Education and the (Shanghai) Academic Ranking of World Universities, offer a route to international recognition and have been em-braced by university administrations. Because faculty pub-lications play a significant role in determining the ranking of an institution, these listings have produced an increased emphasis on research.

The indexes produced by the Thomson Reuters Insti-tute for Scientific Information (ISI) are one standard mea-sure of research quality, and some Asian universities place

a premium on publication in any of the roughly 12,000 journals monitored for the ISI indexes. (For example, the University of Malaya expects members of the academic staff to publish 16 articles in ISI journals to qualify for pro-motion to full professor.) Nearly all ISI journals are in Eng-lish, and partly for that reason universities place a premium on English-language publishing. For promotion and tenure exercises in China and Korea, publications in English are worth more than publications in Chinese or Korean. Japa-nese universities give equal weight to articles or books in English and Japanese, but junior scholars are under consid-erable pressure to publish some of their research findings in English.

For many disciplines, the emphasis on citations has led to a shift from books to articles as the primary locus of aca-demic discussion in the West, a trend that is less apparent in Asia. Scholars in East Asia continue to build personal libraries and in the arts and social sciences to value books over journal articles.

Asian scholars are encouraged to submit English-language manuscripts to publishers that are deemed pres-tigious. Determining which presses or academic journals qualify as prestigious is fraught with difficulty, for admin-istrators make this determination not only for a wide range of academic disciplines but also for publishers operating half a world away. Commercial academic presses with an international presence, most of them based in Western Eu-rope, offer familiar brand names and have benefited from the administrators’ dilemma.

Asian FuturesTwo Asian university presses, NUS Press (formerly Singa-pore University Press) and Hong Kong University Press, publish primarily in English. Both have altered their pub-lishing profiles over the past decade, moving away from an emphasis on local topics and developing strong lists of titles on East and Southeast Asia for international distribution. They struggle to overcome local perceptions that publica-tion in the West is preferable to publication at home, but scholars in China, Japan, and Korea are often as interested in reaching the wider Asian market as they are in selling books in the West and see publishing in Hong Kong or Sin-gapore as a way to accomplish that objective.

The growth of electronic publishing complicates the situation. Scholars in East Asia continue to value printed books and to build personal libraries. However, the major Asian universities, like those in North America, now offer course readings in electronic formats that can be accessed on personal computers, and students rarely if ever go to the library or handle physical books in preparing course assign-ments. With appropriate pricing, electronic materials have

The focus of university publishing in

East Asia has been changing. While

textbooks remain important, research

publications now make up 80 percent

of the output in Japan, and around half

in Korea and China.


the potential to improve educational standards generally across Asia, where many universities have long struggled to operate with inadequate library facilities.

E-book readers of the sort that have been available for several years in North America are just beginning to appear in Asia, but the extent to which they will be used by scholars to read academic materials is not yet clear. The same is true of such readers’ impact on academic publishing. University presses in Asia, as elsewhere, need to find ways to produce and sell electronic editions of the material they publish, and most lack the resources to develop their own e-press. A so-lution may lie in issuing e-books through publishing con-sortia, but it is also possible that e-books will complete the ascendancy of large commercial publishing operations.

The Conundrums of MBA Rankings Ricardo BettiRicardo Betti is director-partner of MBA Empresarial, a consulting firm specialized in the development of human resources in São Paulo, Bra-zil. E-mail: [email protected].

One of the most popular readings for master of business administration applicants, the so-called MBA Rank-

ings do not offer prospective candidates much help to make informed choices about preferred programs.

After 23 years of experience as an admissions consul-tant, I came to the conclusion that, given the extensive dif-ferences among the available rankings, readers would bet-ter spend their time analyzing the ranking criteria before making any valid inferences based on this superficial qual-ity measurement.

Nevertheless, it is not so easy to break resistances and challenge deeply entrenched cultural habits, which include endless lists of rankings about almost every issue on earth. Modern society heavily consumes “top 10” lists, and MBA programs are no exception. The competition among differ-ent magazines compels them to publish their own rank-ings, and each statistician in charge of creating them aims to be original and come up with a different product—pro-liferating irrelevant or highly subjective measures of little help to the puzzled candidate facing the task of selecting a good school among thousands of options all over the world.

Problems and ContradictionsOtherwise respectable publications such as US News & World Report, Business Week, Financial Times, Wall Street

Journal, the Economist, Forbes, and Fortune, to name seven, invest considerable research effort and resources to develop and publish annual (or biennial, in some cases) rankings, supposedly shedding light on the difficult “which MBA” query, evaluating major programs around the world, and attributing to them a questionable classification, to say the least.

For the past 20 years or so, I have patiently matched these seven rankings of the most popular business schools, finding inconsistencies such as the ones verifiable in the current publications: Harvard Business School is simulta-neously evaluated as number 1, 2, 3, 14, 5, 3, and 2, depend-ing on the magazine. The same phenomenon occurs with Stanford University Graduate School of Business (1, 6, 4, 19, 7, 1, 4), the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School (5, 4, 2, 11, 9, 5, 1), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (3, 9, 8, 4, 19, 14, 3), University of Chicago Booth School of Business (5, 1, 9, 9, 4, 4, 6), Northwestern Uni-versity Kellogg School of Management (4, 3, 22, 12, 15, 8, 5), Columbia University Business School (9, 7, 6, 3, 20, 6, 6), and all the other schools contemplated by the surveys.

My compilation encompasses all schools listed as a top 10 in any of these seven rankings; in 2010, a total of 22 schools can boast this coveted status. If a candidate decides to be more selective and pick just the top 5, he or she will come up with 15 schools. Those rare candidates that come into my office claiming that they want to study at the world’s best MBA program will still have to decide among seven different options (Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, London Business School, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, IESE Business School at University of Navarra [Barcelona, Spain], and Wharton [Pennsylvania]).

Rankings should be viewed only as an additional source of information (and not the main one), only accept-able if the candidates could dig into the methodology used to construct the ranking and so understand what is being measured by each different publication.

For example, the Wall Street Journal is totally based on a survey of the recruiters’ opinion at each participant school;

Rankings should be viewed only as an

additional source of information (and

not the main one), only acceptable if the

candidates could dig into the methodol-

ogy used to construct the ranking and

so understand what is being measured

by each different publication


Fortune magazine’s ranking is compiled based on schools’ reputations with polled recruiters and career-placement track records. To arrive at the job placement score, Fortune examines the percentage of students who secure jobs with-in three months of graduation (20% weighting), the aver-age number of job offers per student (also weighted 20%) and average salary in a student’s first post-MBA position (accounting for the remaining 60%).

In this way, Fortune’s methodology is a combination of the Wall Street Journal’s approach of surveying corpo-rate recruiters and Forbes’ focus on postgraduation salary as a measure of return on investment. Business Week, on the other hand, relies heavily on the schools’ reputation with polled MBA students, while the US News & World Re-port puts more emphasis on hard data, such as Graduate Management Admission Council scores, grade-point av-erages, salaries, and the like. The Economist and Financial Times blend American and European schools, placing re-spectively IESE (Barcelona) and London as the world’s best MBA programs.

Other less-popular rankings try to measure different at-tributes: MIT was first at the Webometrics 2009, which as-sessed the “presence of the school in the Web”; Wharton is first at the University of Texas-Dallas ranking, which evalu-ates the school’s contribution to academic research; Yale is first among the non-profit MBAs; MIT is first among the Techno-MBAs; Duke is first in Intellectual Capital. The list of rankings is immense and causes more uncertainty than concrete help.

What To Do?Any scientific mind would refuse to utilize such incongru-ous numbers as a reliable measure of anything at all. Un-fortunately, most candidates do not make such a scientific analysis of this matter, opting to elect one of the above rank-ings as the absolute truth and making decisions of lasting impact based on that imprecise tool. Part of my job is to reveal the inadequacy of such an approach, stimulating can-didates to learn as much as possible about each school—to understand their own goals, drives, needs, and aspirations, to speak with alumni, and whenever possible, to visit the schools before making any decision.

Discipline and Institution Commitment: Professorial ViewsJesús Francisco Galaz-FontesJesús Francisco Galaz-Fontes is professor of education at the Universi-dad Autónoma de Baja California, Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. E-mail: [email protected].

This article is one in IHE’s series focusing on the Changing Academic Profession Project, an 18-nation survey of faculty at-titudes worldwide.

Amid increasing expectations for socioeconomic rele-vance, higher education confronts, in many countries,

a similar set of challenges: declining general-support levels linked with more performance-based funding, expanded enrollment demand, an increasingly knowledge-based and global economy, and a more intense managerialism. While giving unprecedented centrality to academic work, deterio-rating conditions of work and of increased accountability has placed more performance pressure on the faculty.

More than 20 years ago Burton R. Clark wrote that aca-demics live in small and different worlds, defined by the elements of their disciplines and institutions. This article explores the faculty’s commitment and involvement, which constitute a critical dimension of their work

International ComparisonsAs part of the 2007 Changing Academic Profession Inter-national Survey, faculty from 18 countries were asked to rate the importance they ascribed to their academic discipline or field and to their institution. In countries with higher education systems that can be considered “mature” (Aus-tralia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Korea, Norway, United Kingdom, and the United States) or “emerging” (Argentina, Brazil, China, Malaysia, Mexico, Portugal, and South Africa), 80 percent or more of full-time academics (except for Italy, 78 percent) indicated their disciplinary affiliation to be very or fairly important. On the other hand, faculty from none of the 11 mature countries as-cribed a similar importance to their institutional affiliation. In contrast, 80 percent or more of the faculty from 4 of the 7 emerging countries reported their institutional affiliation as very or fairly important to them.

So, while faculty from all surveyed countries are highly committed to their disciplines, an average of 89 and 91 per-cent for mature and emerging countries, academics in these countries differ considerably in terms of their self-reported institutional commitment: first, on average 57 percent of

Any scientific mind would refuse to uti-

lize such incongruous numbers as a re-

liable measure of anything at all.


the faculty in mature countries rated their institutional af-filiation as very or fairly important; and second, 78 percent of faculty in emerging countries did so. The academic pro-fession has long been associated with disciplinary special-ization and involvement, so the first result is to be expected. However, how can we explain the diversity in the reported affiliation to institutions? In this note we explore a “pull” and “push” model that has been used previously in explain-ing student international mobility.

Factors External to InstitutionsSeveral aspects associated with mature countries are mak-ing academics increasingly responsive to our contemporary knowledge-based and global society and, therefore, less centered on their institutions. Such factors can be seen as “pulling away” academics from their institutions.

The Outside Job Market. Among faculty in mature coun-tries, more recently hired ones are willing to work outside higher education. When grouped according to periods in which they obtained their first full-time appointment, as an increment in nine mature countries, 10 to 33 percent of faculty reported considering, during the last five years, the possibility of going to work outside higher education. Among emerging countries, in contrast, faculty from only two countries manifested a similar tendency.

The Interinstitutional Nature of Research. When asked about their research activities, an average of 64 percent of faculty from mature countries reported to collaborate with colleagues from other institutions within their own country, while 57 percent of those from emerging countries did so. This difference widens when faculty are asked about collabo-rating with colleagues from other countries: on average, 52 percent from mature countries reported to do so, while an average of 36 percent from emerging countries did so.

National Cultural, Economic, and Organizational Vari-ables. Faculty in mature countries have considered, more than their counterparts from emerging countries, the pos-sibility of moving to an academic position in another insti-tution, whether in the same (32 vs. 22%) or in a different (22 vs. 14%) country. Linked to this potential mobility, 43 percent, on average, of the faculty in emerging countries reported to hold a doctorate, while 72 percent of academics in mature countries did so. So, faculty in mature countries appear to be more external-oriented and, potentially, less fixed to their institutions.

Factors Internal to InstitutionsFactors that disengage and “push” faculty away from their institutions can also be found inside higher education insti-tutions. Related to the increasing managerialism of the sec-tor, the following aspects are examples of this, particularly in the case of mature countries.

On average, faculty in mature countries consider, less often than their counterparts in emerging countries, that top-level administrators provide a competent leadership (36 vs. 44%). Also, less faculty in mature countries indicated a good communication between management and academics (26 vs. 36%), and less collegiality in decision-making pro-cesses within their institutions (26 vs. 35%). Additionally, they observed a stronger performance orientation in their institutions (55 vs. 45%) and, possibly associated to such orientation, they also reported more frequently to consider their jobs as a source of considerable personal strain (46 vs. 34%). Finally, faculty in mature countries saw more of a cumbersome administrative process in their institutions (63 vs. 52%) while, at the same time, they considered less frequently that the overall working conditions in higher education have improved (22 vs. 44%).

While figures for the previous management aspects are not positive in general, it is indeed telling that faculty in mature countries have a more pessimistic perception of what is going on in their institutions. They see less of an improvement in higher education working conditions since they started their career, and at the same time, they perceive a more antagonistic management milieu. In both cases, a normal consequence could be academics’ wanting to look for alternative and better work environments.

ConclusionDuring the last three-to-four decades, the internal and ex-ternal context of higher education has changed quite dra-matically. Living in a world defined by their disciplines and institutions, academics’ commitment to both can be seen as a barometer of their adjustment to change. As it turns out, not discipline but, rather, institutional commitment is the most sensitive to these disruptions and developments, particularly for faculty in mature countries. Parallel to this institutional commitment change, faculty, again particu-larly in mature countries, report that doing work outside higher education is becoming more attractive. Are we to see

So, while faculty from all surveyed coun-

tries are highly committed to their disci-

plines, an average of 89 and 91 percent

for mature and emerging countries,

academics in these countries differ con-

siderably in terms of their self-reported

institutional commitment.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N10 The “Decline” of the Private Sector

an exodus of faculty from higher education in the near fu-ture? Will the quality of academic work suffer? Care should be taken to monitor these developments and turn national attention toward assessing their implications for the con-tinued and future “relevance” of the national higher educa-tion system, in general, and of the academic profession, in particular.

The Decline of Private Higher Education: A Special Section

One of the key trends in international higher education, the rapid expansion of the private sector now holds one-third of all global enrollments. However, the growth is not unbro-ken or inexorable and sometimes stalls and even reverses. This special section on the decline of private higher educa-tion seeks to identify the major dynamics (including causes) of private higher education decline. Certain dynamics may have the greatest effect in a given world region or country. Sometimes we see multiple or inter-related factors within a country. In any event, dynamics such as public expansion, elevation of educational institutions to higher education sta-tus, demographic stagnation, and privatization within pub-lic higher education institutions have reversed the private higher education proportional growth in various countries.

Yet, to debate the dynamics of private higher educa-tion decline it is relevant to evaluate the shape and weight of decline. A country may experience decline in different private subsectors whether or not there is decline in the pri-vate sector overall. Declines may constitute steep or slight, temporary or long-lasting procedures. The pieces in this special section show that private higher education decline can be a noteworthy reality alongside the much-larger re-ality of private higher education growth. This special IHE section is coordinated by Joanna Musial, a doctoral research associate in PROPHE, University at Albany, SUNY. E-mail: [email protected].

The Program for Research on Private Higher Education (PROPHE) contributes an article on private higher education in each IHE issue. For this issue, however, PROPHE collabo-rates with a special section on the Decline of Private Higher Education.

An International Exploration of DeclineDaniel C. LevyDaniel C. Levy is a Distinguished Professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York, and is director of the Program for Research on Private Higher Education. E-mail: dlevy@uamail. albany.edu.

Growth has rightly formed a dominant theme in the study of private higher education, and expansion con-

tinues mostly unabated. However, the decline of private higher education constitutes an untold reality, and growth is not a uniform, omnipresent, or inevitable course. History even records private higher education abolition. Less radi-cally, various types of private higher education declines oc-cur even while private numbers usually grow—a more com-mon phenomenon on the public side in recent decades.

Reasons for private higher education decline can be categorized in two broad categories—(1) social and (2) po-litical or public-sector policies.

Social FactorsThe decline of private higher education is seriously caused by the lapse of social identity and distinctiveness that pre-viously fueled private growth. The weakening of Catholic identity in the Americas is a prominent case in point. The distinctive Catholic orientation has become less defining even at private institutions that remain officially Catho-lic. Fewer families choose private education on religious grounds. Similarly, as mainstream society becomes more open mainstream to young women, fewer families choose private education on gender grounds.

A different socially based decline is demographically induced, as a population shift comes to affect overall de-mand for higher education. The demographic shift could, most dramatically, produce in higher education an actual fall or at least a reversal of strong growth. Such a basis of private higher education decrease is not common in the developing world, while there are cases (see the article on Thailand in this special section) and it is a powerful fac-tor in the developed world. Demographic decline has not affected western European private higher education much, since private higher education is still a small sector in most countries. Yet, in Portugal, the country with the largest pri-vate higher education sector, that share fell from 36 to 25 percent, from 1996 to 2006. Some programs no longer at-tract applicants, and some private higher education institu-tions have faced deaths or at least mergers. Eastern Europe has much higher shares of private higher education, and thus the sector is more vulnerable to demographic decline.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 11The “Decline” of the Private Sector

From 1996 to 2006, Georgian private higher education fell from 34 to 22 percent of enrollment. Russian private higher education may in the next few years suffer from the nation-al demographic crisis.

With the Republic of Korea following suit, Japan al-ready shows the sharpest effects of demographic stagnation as a rare case of private higher education decline in absolute numbers, though the public sector has seen similar losses. Within the private sector, the lower-status nonuniversities have suffered the most, though the sector has also shown entrepreneurial skill in adding nontraditional student pop-ulations. Still, the near future could witness difficulty for the Japanese private sector, including institutional closings and mergers.

Politics and the Impact of the Public SectorOn the political side, public policy can strongly impact pri-vate higher education. Many policies or postures promote growth, but others have undermined growth; among the latter are the following four.

Hostile government. At the extreme, government has banned private higher education. In much of the world, pri-vate higher education was banned before it ever emerged. But communism (in eastern Europe and China) has been the most significant example about decline. Other left-lean-ing governments have abolished private higher education (Pakistan and Turkey), though such bans have generally been short-lived. Much less dramatically, left-leaning dem-ocratic governments have sharply boosted public-sector growth. Argentina’s 1983 redemocratization brought sud-den open admissions at the national public university, and the private higher education sector dropped from 22 to 13 percent by 1985. Today, some governments have come to power on broad anti-privatization platforms.

Regulation. In other situations, without a modifica-tion of government administration, public-policy change brings a decline in private higher education. Government sometimes moves to increased regulation of private higher education. This is striking as “delayed regulation” after an initial private higher education period of rather laissez-faire proliferation. Such an evolution has been visible in much of eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America. Licensing stan-dards emerge or expand, accreditation is introduced, and laws are promulgated. Sometimes regulation of matters such as program offerings exceeds options faced by pub-lic universities, with their relative autonomy, own statutes, venerable legitimacy, and political power. Examples have included Thailand, Japan, Argentina, and Brazil. Rules (e.g., in accreditation) imposed on private higher education are really more suitable to the public sector. Often, public universities lobby powerfully for more restrictions on pri-vate higher education. Government-set tuition caps can be

onerous for private higher education size.Public higher education expansion. As noted, historically,

periods of sharp public expansion have occurred, which, in turn, decrease the private higher education sector’s share. This is what happened, for example, with the huge postwar development of US two-year public community colleges. Both Colombia and Thailand show the effects of rapid pub-lic expansion on the private higher education sector, as the respective articles in this special section show. Enrollment grows in existing public institutions, new institutions are created, and existing institutions are elevated to higher edu-cation status.

Privatization within the public sector. Public higher education—like other challenged public enterprises—can partly privatize. The paradox is captivating: public institu-tions protect themselves against private ones by privatizing themselves. Of course, the self-privatization is only partial; public universities almost never become private ones. Or it is less a matter of public university desire than necessity, due to the competition from private institutions or to gov-ernment pushing their hands. Measures include “private” management methods, more market responsiveness, in-

creasing in contracting, and so forth. Given the continuing public advantages of low or no tuition and often of tradi-tional status, a degree of such privatization can be an effec-tive bump against private higher education.

Perhaps the most dramatic (and threatening) public partial privatization is the opening of second “modules.” Tu-ition charging and market oriented, these programs allow public universities to take in more students than otherwise and in other ways compete right on the private universities’ turf. Kenya is a strong example, where the private share has fallen from around 20 to 10 percent. In Georgia, the pro-portion of self-financed students within public universities rose to 43 percent by 2002, and private higher education’s share of total higher education diminished. Several Asian public universities now also have module II programs.

ConclusionMany types of private higher education do decline and for various reasons. Yet, private higher education grows signifi-cantly despite all the negative factors identified. The overall

Other left-leaning governments have

abolished private higher education

(Pakistan and Turkey), though such

bans have generally been short-lived.


private higher education decrease almost always refers to public- and private-sector shares, not absolute enrollment. Even proportional decline in the private sector applies only to a minority of countries. The most vulnerable private higher education is the demand-absorbing type, which un-derscores that all parts of the sector do not face constant vulnerability. Moreover, private higher education institu-tions are not inevitably hapless sufferers; evidence of new initiatives includes reaching out (including internationally) to new kinds of students, in new modalities.

Similarly, between the private and public sectors, some factors may bring about private higher education decline alongside factors that create private higher educa-tion growth. In sum, even though growth remains the ma-jor trend for private higher education, the decline of pri-vate higher education warrants analysis for contemporary dynamics as well as historical and future ones. The major and traditional question of how society divides its activities into private and public sectors is today overwhelmingly an-swered in higher education as a shift to the private, but it is neither a uniform nor unrelenting shift.

The Decline of Colombian Private Higher EducationLina UribeLina Uribe is a doctoral research associate in the Program for Research on Private Higher Education, at the University at Albany, State Univer-sity of New York, and the rector of Institución Universitaria de Comfa-cauca in Colombia. E-mail: [email protected].

Colombia has experienced a surprising phenomenon in higher education. While opening access to a substan-

tially greater portion of the relevant age-cohort group (36% in 2009 against only 19% in 2000), the system registered a proportional downturn in private enrollment. Such a de-cline is particularly unexpected, given that, historically, Co-lombia has largely grown its higher education system as a result of the private initiative. In fact within Latin America,

Colombia trailed only Brazil, for many decades, in the pri-vate sector’s proportional share of total enrollment.

Colombia’s private majority peaked at 68 percent in 1996, but private enrollment progressively fell to 45 per-cent in 2007, thereby returning to its 1970 level. To be sure, Colombia’s private proportional downturn does not involve an absolute decrease, given that private higher education has experienced a slight increase in enrollments after 1997 (8,700 new enrollments per year on average within private institutions against 45,000 new students annually entering private institutions between 1995 and 1997)

Public ExpansionOne factor of the private sector’s downfall possibly relates to the increased tuition for private institutions, reducing af-fordability, and shrinking the tuition gap between public and private institutions. Much more important, however, in explaining the private sector’s drop is the astonishing public education growth. Private enrollment increased only by 18 percent, while public higher education expanded by 196 percent between 1997 and 2007. The system achieved almost 590,000 new enrollments during that period, of which 84 percent of new students were in the public sector.

The growth of public higher education is based on gov-ernmental actions within a set of varied policies and pro-grams to increase coverage, as a fundamental goal. Public expansion definitely succeeded. In contrast, a government effort to stimulate demand for private nonuniversity pro-grams through student financial aid has not had similar impact (only about 7,000 new entrants came into nonuni-versity private colleges between 2002 and 2005).

TrendsThe private-sector decline in Colombia is opposite to Latin America’s overall expansion of private enrollment, which has progressively grown to 49 percent. Furthermore, the decline experienced by Colombia appears unique in recent years (1990s–2000s) among Latin American countries, where private sectors have grown (Chile, Costa Rica, Gua-temala, Mexico, Peru, and Nicaragua) or remained stable (Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay).

On the other hand, even though Colombia’s private enrollment decline lasted a complete decade, in 2008 the enrollment growth shifted again to be higher in private in-stitutions than in public ones (8.3% and 4.3%, respectively). This fact fits the tentative global finding in which declines are seen to exist for certain time periods.

The Colombian case also fits a more robust phenom-enon found in the global private higher education lit-erature—private-sector decline amid private enrollment growth. A more specific factor fit is how the private-sector decline is largely the result of the upgrading of a type of

The demographic shift could, most dra-

matically, produce in higher education

an actual fall or at least a reversal


public education to higher education status, as shown in the article on Thailand in this issue. On the other hand, the Colombian private decline does not fit those cases (e.g., Ja-pan), where declining demographics explain the downturn in private higher education. While the Colombian popula-tion aged 17-to-21 years increased only by 9 percent, higher education enrollment grew by 44 percent, between 2002 and 2008.

Ups and Downs across Central and Eastern EuropeSnejana Slantcheva-DurstSnejana Slantcheva-Durst is assistant professor of higher education at the University of Toledo, Ohio, and a collaborating scholar with the Program for Research on Private Higher Education. E-mail: [email protected].

Studies of private higher education in the countries of the European Union (EU) have identified sizable differenc-

es in private provision between central and eastern Europe-an countries and their western counterparts. Larger private higher education sectors are much more common across central and eastern Europe, while private sectors in western European countries have remained mostly marginal. Ten central and eastern European countries joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 and aligned the reform agendas of their higher education systems with the wider processes of Eu-ropeanization and harmonization. They include Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

After the fall of the communist regimes in 1989, pri-vate institutions of higher education multiplied to varying degrees in all countries of central and eastern Europe. The establishment of private institutions in postcommunist Eu-rope took place rather quickly. While most cited examples come from Latvia, Poland, and Romania—where more than one-third of all students are currently enrolled in private institutions—the majority of central and eastern European countries maintain private enrollment patterns ranging be-tween 7 and 21 percent.

Over the last decade, private enrollments across central and eastern Europe reveal different dynamics in national arrangements of private and public sectors, based on a conscious attempt on the part of national governments to optimize the provision of higher education in their coun-tries. Most recent trends reveal slow private growth in most of these 10 countries. Yet, examples of temporary decline,

within all or some forms of private provision, have also been noted throughout the decade. Alongside the cases and trends in the other articles of this special section, the declines in central and eastern Europe are mostly small in scope and persistence, underscoring that this aspect of pri-vate higher education does not need to be viewed as dra-matic or permanent.

Private University EnrollmentsAt least one period of temporary decline in private provision can be identified in most central and eastern European EU countries between 1999 and 2009. Enrollments in the pri-vate-university sector went down as a result of legal changes in Bulgaria, between 1999 and 2000; in Estonia, between 2002 and 2003; in Hungary, in 2003; and in Romania, be-

tween 2001 and 2003. Drastic, but still temporary, reduc-tion of private provision occurred in Slovenia, where private university enrollments plummeted by almost 100 percent in 2003. In most of those cases, private university enroll-ments picked up subsequently, while rarely surpassing the predecline levels—as in Bulgaria and in only two other countries, Latvia and Hungary—private-university enroll-ments have maintained the downward trend. Thus, for the most part, private declines in university enrollment have been limited in duration.

Private Nonuniversity EnrollmentsThe private provision in the nonuniversity sector needs to be examined as well. Again, growth (often extensive) is more common than decline in these lower professionally oriented qualifications and institutions—often known as professional colleges, offering short-cycle degrees and qual-ifications. In most countries, many of these colleges were created early on after the political changes. The nonuniver-sity institutions tend to be smaller, focus mostly on teach-ing, and have a relatively narrow programmatic scope of occupation-oriented programs—concentrating on manage-ment, marketing, economics, agricultural studies, insur-ance and finances, tourism, computer sciences, and theater. They are primarily student oriented, often closely connected

After the fall of the communist regimes

in 1989, private institutions of higher

education multiplied to varying degrees

in all countries of central and eastern

Europe.


with the labor market and regionally engaged. Private-non-university enrollments have shown more resilience in sev-eral countries in the region. Examples come from Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Latvia. For the period 2004/05–2008/09, private-college enrollments in Bulgaria and Lithuania rose by 208 percent and by 74 percent in Latvia. The number of short-cycle colleges increased most pronouncedly in Lat-via—where they doubled—while a slight increase of 3 per-cent in the numbers of colleges is also noted in the Czech Republic.

In several central and eastern European countries, growth in the private-nonuniversity, short-cycle higher education subsectors probably formed an emerging future trend within the overall region and beyond. The intense fac-tors of this trend might include the necessity for creating a wide variety of lifelong-learning opportunities, the growing need for retraining and further education from increasing numbers of adult learners, the declining ability of state bud-gets to support large-scale educational provision for more people, and the necessity to relate higher education provi-sion to the world of work.

However, growth of this sector has not formed a wide-spread phenomenon throughout the region. A decline in nonuniversity private enrollments has also been noted. The private-nonuniversity enrollments grew by 63 percent in Estonia in 2002 and then declined, only to pick up slowly after 2005. Similar examples come from Latvia and Slo-venia, while private-nonuniversity enrollments in Poland, Romania, and Slovakia have been decreasing over the last several years. Of course, private-nonuniversity enrollments across the region are much smaller in general, and rates of decline or growth rarely have a strong impact on the overall higher education sector.

The Resilence of Private InstitutionsThe variety of private higher education development among central and eastern European countries reflects each coun-try’s ongoing search of optimal approaches to balance high demand with limited resources and shifting demographic trends. Across the region, private higher education institu-tions are relatively new but have played an important role in increasing educational opportunity and satisfying demand. Declines in private provision of higher education have been limited in range and time, yet have occurred in both the university and nonuniversity private sectors—and some-times in total private enrollments. However, a consider-ation of the university and nonuniversity sectors separately indicates that private provision in the region has remained resilient, especially in the nonuniversity sector.

The Decline of Thai Private Higher EducationPrachayani PraphamontripongPrachayani Praphamontripong is a PROPHE affiliate, University at Al-bany, SUNY. E-mail: [email protected].

The rapid growth of Thai private higher education dur-ing the 1990s brought the sector to a peak of 20 per-

cent of the total higher education enrollment, lasting for a whole decade. However, since 2002 the private higher education sector has experienced stagnant and declining enrollment (in both colleges and universities). By 2007 private higher education constituted just 10 percent of the system. In contrast, almost all types of public higher education institutions increased their enrollment percent-ages. The exception has been the public Open Admission University subsector, where even absolute enrollment has declined since 2003. While private higher education lead-ers speculate that public expansion and public privatization are the main factors for their declining market share, their public counterparts argue that such a drop mainly involves the country’s population shifts.

Public ExpansionPrivate higher education institutions are concerned about hefty public expansion. Such a tension occurs where public universities have increased their branch campuses. Since the late 1990s branch campuses have become a popu-lar policy for public universities. They typically offer full- and part-time programs operated in secondary schools or shopping malls. They also offer programs similar to those already provided by private higher education in nearby lo-cations. Most features of this rather nonselective public ex-pansion echo characteristics of demand-absorbing private higher education in Thailand and worldwide. However, little burgeoning demand exists for these private institu-tions to absorb. Thus, Thai public expansion instead pulls away existing demand from private higher education insti-tutions. Meanwhile, branch campuses of private higher ed-

Privatization of public universities is

another facet of public-sector expan-

sion challenging private higher educa-

tion growth.


ucation institutions were forbidden until the private higher education act 2550 (in 2007) deregulated this policy. Never-theless, private higher education institutions willing to ex-pand are still encumbered by regulations that closely moni-tor them in many aspects. Consequently, only a few private universities practice the branch campus opportunity.

Furthermore, the private higher education sector de-clines even where public institutions do not expand. In-stead, some public education institutions are elevated to university status. The major examples are Rajabhat In-stitutes (teachers colleges) and Rajamangkla Institutes of Technology. Both were uplifted to university status in 2003, thereby raising the enrollment share of the public sector.

Government policy increasing public seats in the Cen-tral University Admissions system is another challenge to private higher education. Although the policy does not specify on diminishing private higher education, it has that effect. A common private higher education complaint is that most public universities do not limit their admissions to only one round, but prolong the process by also accepting applications subsequently. It becomes more burdensome for private higher education institutions to recruit prospec-tive students. In the end, all private institutions feel the im-pact of less restrictive public growth.

Public PrivatizationPrivatization of public universities is another facet of pub-lic-sector expansion challenging private higher education growth. As the privatization brings autonomy in manage-ment and choice to the public universities, it allows them to act more effectively in the increasingly competitive mar-ketplace. Although private higher education institutions are often flexible, efficient, and speedy—compared to tra-ditional public counterparts—once becoming autonomous, public universities narrow that gap. A key issue is that they then combine this autonomy with their financial advan-tage; whereas private higher education institutions do not receive any direct government funding, all public universi-ties are government subsidized for their annual operations. In becoming autonomous, public universities still receive government budgets but are not regulated under the old bu-reaucratic procedures. With a block grant, autonomous uni-versities are able to manage their financial allocation with-out interference. Because of the financial subsidies paired with the new freedom, public autonomous universities are at an advantage in the market competition.

Nonetheless, some private higher education institu-tions are not bothered by this public transformation as long as the government enforces similar standards on both sectors. However, private higher education institutions are often more regulated than are their public university coun-terparts.

Further Decline?Whether Thailand’s private higher education share contin-ues to decline will depend in large part on the extension, in-tensification, or weakening of public-sector dynamics that have already taken their toll on private higher education. Principally, this includes public expansion—in terms of the growth within higher education and elevation of public in-stitutions to university status—and through public partial

privatization. Regarding public expansion, Thailand’s total higher education already constitutes 56 percent of the co-hort-age group, so the system may not receive much room to expand at the recent rate. On the other hand, in view of the global and especially regional context much of the expansion may come on the private end. The Thai private higher education share (10%) is far from the East Asian share (38.6%). It is not known whether the private higher education sector will resume its earlier growth or continue to decline.

Other dynamics will also present challenges to private higher education. Not accepting responsibility for private higher education’s present enrollment struggle, public uni-versities point instead to shifting demographics. Thailand has been in a population-declining phase since the 1990s. Statistics project a drop of the 10-to-24-year age group, which will eventually result in decreased demand for high-er education. Such a population fall-off could especially hit private higher education’s demand-absorbing subsector. As in East Asia, generally, this is the largest private subsector and is composed of small institutions, usually among the least-desired choices for prospective students. Japan’s de-mographic fall has hit higher education especially on the low-end institutions. A question involves how many such Thai private higher education institutions will be able to survive shrinking supply, particularly if the public sector keeps expanding.

Government policy increasing public

seats in the Central University Admis-

sions system is another challenge to

private higher education.

In addition to our Web site and Facebook page, we are now tweeting. We hope you will consider “following” us on Twitter!

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N16 Focus on India

India’s New Accreditation LawPawan AgarwalPawan Agarwal is a senior civil servant from India and author of Indian Higher Education: Envisioning the Future (Sage, 2009). The views ex-pressed here are personal. E-mail: [email protected].

In India, an unprecedented growth has been under way in the number of universities and colleges. During the

past five years alone, 200 new universities and 8,000 new colleges were added, taking the totals to 525 and 25,950, respectively. This exceptional growth has raised concerns about quality. Voluntary accreditation established two de-cades ago is struggling to demonstrate its viability. Less than one-sixth of the colleges and one-third of all univer-sities have obtained accreditation so far. The issue is not based on capacity alone; accreditation has no consequences and therefore is not valued much. Most universities and col-leges are unwilling to subject themselves to accreditation.

The New Accreditation LawA new accreditation law is currently before the Indian Par-liament for approval. The law would provide mandatory periodic accreditation of all institutions and programs by registered accreditation agencies. Mandatory accreditation of over 26,500 institutions and a mind-boggling number of programs would require many competent and reliable ac-crediting agencies. The law therefore provides for a National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions that will register such agencies and monitor and audit their functioning. The full text of the National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions Bill, 2010, is available at http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/press_release/bill/Committee%20on%20HRD/The%20National%20Accreditation.pdf.

Under the law, accreditation agencies would constitute nonprofit entities strictly regulated by the national authority and would run primarily on accreditation fees collected by them from institutions. Their ownership, governing board, and bylaws could only be changed with the approval of the authority. Further, the accreditation process and fees they charge would also be prescribed by the authority. Norms and standards to be followed by the accreditation agen-cies would, however, be specified by the concerned statu-tory regulatory bodies. The existing accreditation agencies, namely National Accreditation and Assessment Council and National Board of Accreditation, will both continue to function until they are registered with the new authority.

All new institutions would require compulsory accredi-

tation before they admit students, although existing insti-tutions and programs would get three-years time to do so. Those that are already accredited will go for accreditation only after their current period of accreditation expires. In the new law, for nonaccreditation, there are stiff penalties extending up to two years of imprisonment or fines up to one million rupees (US$22,000), or both. Central govern-ment may, however, exempt some institutions from man-datory accreditation.

The law brings quality in higher education to the cen-ter stage. It provides an autonomous institutional structure with statutory backing to register and regulate competent professional accreditation agencies. The law makes the reg-istration and accreditation process time bound, transparent, and reliable. It expects to provide credible information on academic quality and assist student mobility across institu-tions. India aspires to bring its quality-assurance practices at par with the global standards with this course of action. By favoring multiple agencies, the law provides choice to higher education institutions. However, given the size and complexity of the system, its implementation is going to be a humongous task.

Implementation ChallengesEffective implementation of this law requires understand-ing of realities and resolution of several areas of ambigui-ties in the law itself. Accreditation and regulation are of-ten interchangeably used. In some countries, accreditation means approval by a government authority, while accredita-tion practiced in India is a US import, with external quality assurance based on peer review. This pattern is aimed at maintaining and improving academic standards. It assures that students achieve specific levels of knowledge, skills, and abilities as a consequence of their engagement in a par-ticular education program.

In the United States, accreditation includes consider-ation of physical infrastructure, human resources (includ-ing faculty), administration, and governance structures. For some professional fields, there may be additional licensing evaluations. To be effective, India’s accreditation practices have to build upon a prevailing system of recognition and approval of institutions and programs. The law seems to ignore them.

The law is based on unreal expectations. It assumes that several competent accreditation agencies will come up and accredit all institutions and programs in the next three years and then do so periodically thereafter. This process is unlikely to happen due to stringent (rightly so) eligibility conditions. For fear of prosecution, it is likely that many more institutions would submit themselves for accredita-tion, but it is doubtful if all of them would be accredited any

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 17Focus on India

time soon. Many institutions and programs would remain unaccredited and might face closure and stringent penal-ties. Closure of institutions and programs is not easy, given the fallout on students and staff and that prosecution is of-ten a long-drawn process.

In contrast, US voluntary accreditation derives its influ-ence almost entirely from the fact that the national govern-ment utilizes institutional accreditation to determine col-lege and university eligibility for federal student aid, which is an important funding source for most institutions. In ad-dition, students from unaccredited institutions are unable to transfer to accredited institutions. As a result, students opt only for accredited institutions; unaccredited institu-tions are nonviable and hence wither away overtime rather than being prosecuted or forced to close.

A Way ForwardConsidering the mammoth task of accrediting about 26,500 institutions and hundreds of thousands of pro-grams offered by them, it is necessary to design an effective quality-assurance strategy for the country. With 90 percent enrollment at the undergraduate level and 60 percent at the postgraduate level in colleges affiliated to the universities, affiliating universities could play an important role.

Responsibility of accreditation could be shared. For instance, accreditation of arts and science colleges in the states (other than those affiliated to the central institu-tions—those funded by the central government) may de-volve on the state government or agencies under them. Programs other than professional programs are usually not accredited, and their quality is assured through the institu-tional accreditation process. This would take away a large burden of program accreditation.

Specialized stand-alone professional institutions in areas such as engineering, architecture, pharmacy, and nursing could be accredited by the concerned professional agency avoiding duplication of efforts. There is a possibil-ity of roping private agencies in as specialized programs of study like insurance, maritime education, and so on. Credit Rating and Information Services of India Ltd is already ac-

crediting maritime institutions on behalf of the Directorate General of Shipping, a government agency. There could be a few more opportunities like this.

The remaining universities and colleges could be ac-credited by the National Accreditation and Assessment Council. This agency could be reorganized into five inde-pendent regional accreditation councils. Based on objec-tive criteria and using an exemption clause in the new law, some top research-intensive institutions may be declared as self-accrediting institutions in the spirit of giving them full autonomy. Thus, it is possible to cover all institutions and programs through a planned and decentralized approach and responsibility sharing.

In place of making accreditation mandatory by law, it would be more practical to create other requirements. Ac-creditation could be mandatory to access all types of govern-ment funds—institutional or research grants and student aid. Accredited institutions could be ensured not to take students on transfer from unaccredited ones. Also, institu-tions that do not seek government funds could be brought into the accreditation fold. The power of student choice would make accreditation de facto mandatory.

ConclusionImplementing India’s new accreditation into its present form, despite its laudable objective and pious intent, would be an uphill task and a long struggle. Accreditation as conceived in the new law is not really a quality-assurance practice but, rather, a binding government regulation that is unlikely to work. The new law should rely on linking ac-creditation to government funding and student transfer in place of stiff penalties. A holistic and structured approach with multiple agencies is needed to assure quality for the large and expanding Indian higher education system.

India’s Proposed Reforms: Somewhat Half-BakedPhilip G. AltbachPhilip G. Altbach is Monan University Professor and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. E-mail: [email protected].

From down here in Thiruvananthapuram, the capital of Kerala in south India, the government’s higher educa-

tion reform proposals look a bit different than in glitzy New Delhi. Kerala, ruled now by mild-mannered communists,

Voluntary accreditation established two

decades ago is struggling to demon-

strate its viability. Less than one-sixth

of the colleges and one-third of all

universities have obtained accredita-

tion so far.


who have had power here off and on for the past half cen-tury, is less market oriented and commercialized than up north. The state has universal literacy, the highest in India, a lack of visible poverty in striking contrast to much of the recent state of affairs in India, and a higher education ac-cess rate of about 18 percent—double the national average. Kerala’s main export is its people, many well educated, who work all over the world but particularly in the Gulf coun-tries. Indeed, a quarter of the state’s income consists of re-mittances from those workers—many of them well-educat-ed professionals.

A conference devoted to a discussion of the reform policies, soon to go before Parliament with a strong likeli-hood of passing, was unsurprisingly critical of most of the measures. The overriding criticism involved the underlying commitment in the reforms to linking Indian higher edu-cation to global trends of commercializing higher educa-tion and uncritically linking India to the global knowledge economy. The spearhead of internationalization is the bill to open India’s higher education system to foreign insti-tutions. The proposals were criticized for uncritical accep-tance of yet to be determined foreign institutions and ini-tiatives, unrealistic expectations for foreign institutions to provide significant access, and new ideas for India’s admit-tedly moribund academic system. Some see the proposals as a kind of “new neocolonialism.”

While the foreign providers’ proposals have received the most international coverage, they include only a small part of a large package of changes. There was wide criticism of “dictation from Delhi” and the “regulation raj” of too much centralization of a higher education system that has traditionally given a great deal of autonomy for the states—as stipulated in India’s constitution. A proposal to set up a powerful self-perpetuating panel to rule on a range of high-er education issues faced criticisms, as did a bill that would set up tribunals to adjudicate problems in the system.

Accreditation has long been a problem in India. The agency set up several decades ago has only accredited a small proportion of India’s universities and colleges. The reforms propose a new mechanism and dismantled the old one but do not clarify exactly how the new arrangements will work. The reform proposals recognize that Indian higher education suffers from significant corruption and proposes new mechanisms to prevent that. Several of the existing key agencies that have controlled higher education nationally, such as the University Grants Commission and the All-India Council for Technical Education, have uncer-tain futures.

The critics pointed to problem after problem in the ac-tual forthcoming legislation: unclear wording, incomplete plans for specific agencies, unrealistic expectations for pro-posed committees, and other lapses. For this observer, it

did seem that the legislation, at the very least, needs some significant tweaking if it is to have a good chance of success even on its own terms.

Additional proposals, not specifically tied to the legisla-tion, also seem rather unrealistic. The minister of Human Resource Development, Kapil Sibal, who is a powerhouse of ideas and proposals, has by fiat set up at least one cen-tral government university in each of India’s states. He has proposed an expanded number of Indian Institutes of Tech-nology and Indian Institutes of Management, crown jewels in India’s postsecondary system, and promised a dozen or more “world-class research universities” in a short period of time. The problems involving all of the proposals are manifold—perhaps the most significant issue is personnel, since there are simply not enough high-quality academics to take up jobs in these new institutions. Indeed, the exist-ing IITs are facing serious staffing problems as many aca-demics are reaching retirement age. Further, the amounts of new funding being made available for these initiatives is completely inadequate.

Viewed from down south, the flaws in India’s grand plans seem rather clear. Perhaps the Delhi power elite be-lieves that change can come on the cheap with somewhat half-baked plans. Perhaps they just want to get the country’s higher education system out of its lethargy. The current set of plans, like many of the ill-fated reform proposals of the past, does little to change India’s 20,000 undergraduate colleges—currently steeped in bureaucracy and outmoded teaching methods—and little to reform the country’s 400-plus universities. Without grappling with the existing uni-versities, reform will in any case be very incomplete. It is all daunting—perhaps “mission impossible.” (This article also appears in Times Higher Education.)

The overriding criticism involved the

underlying commitment in the reforms

to linking Indian higher education to

global trends of commercializing high-

er education and uncritically linking In-

dia to the global knowledge economy.

In addition to our Web site and Facebook page, we are now tweeting. We hope you will consider “following” us on Twitter.


Kerala: The Dilemmas of Equality in Higher EducationPhilip G. Altbach and Eldho MathewsPhilip G. Altbach is the Monan University Professor and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. E-mail: [email protected]. Eldho Mathews is research officer at the Kerala State Higher Education Council. E-mail: [email protected].

One of India’s smaller states offers some interesting lessons concerning higher education and its role in

development as well as alternative approaches to higher education policy. The state of Kerala, on India’s southwest coast, is unusual in the Indian context. The state’s social and political circumstances have contributed to its higher education development. Kerala has a population of 31 mil-lion, with an unusual religious mix by Indian standards—one-quarter Christian, one-quarter Muslim, and about half Hindu. It may be a useful case not only for India but for other developing countries.

While not wealthy even by Indian standards—it ranks ninth in gross domestic product among India’s 28 states—Kerala is by most measures the most advanced state in In-dia in education. It has universal literacy and enrolls around 18 percent of the age group in postsecondary education, double India’s average and almost on a par with rapidly de-veloping China. Women constitute more than 60 percent of the total higher education enrollment—the highest in In-dia. The state also boasts the highest Human Development Index rating in India, with the highest life expectancy and the lowest infant-mortality rate.

Politically, Kerala also represents an interesting case. Its current government is a coalition dominated by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The communists, who have been in power off and on since the 1950s, have in many ways shaped modern Kerala’s society. Kerala was the first state in the world to actually elect communists to power. Early on, they were able to push through meaning-ful land reform and have emphasized social services, edu-cation, and income redistribution. An active media keeps debate lively and helps to promote transparency and a high degree, by Indian standards, of probity in government. Ev-eryone seems to belong to a union—including university and college teachers, students, and campus workers. One vice chancellor said that one of her main jobs was keeping track of and consulting with unions. Most of the population seem to be represented by some organization, thus giving a voice to much of the population.

The vast chasm between rich and poor, so evident in India and much of the developing world, seems much less obvious in everyday life in Kerala. Corruption seems less endemic and social relations, in general, more stable.

Kerala missed out on India’s “industrial revolution.” Perhaps industries were leery of the well-entrenched unions. This means that the pollution of the environment common elsewhere is largely missing in Kerala—the state’s informal motto is “God’s Own Country”—an effort to build up Kerala’s successful tourist industry. There is also not much of an economic base—agriculture and the fishing sector remain important, as does tourism, and also the ex-port of skilled personnel, especially to the Gulf countries. Here, Kerala’s high levels of literacy and its well-educated population have contributed to the attractiveness of its world force. Almost a quarter of the state’s gross domestic product comes from the remittances of overseas workers. Policymakers are now fostering “technoparks” in the hope of making the state attractive to India’s burgeoning infor-mation-technology sector; the first technopark was estab-lished in Thiruvananthapuram, the state’s capital in 1990. Yet, Bangalore is currently the major hub for information technology companies and is India’s “silicon valley,” and Kerala is struggling to catch up.

Higher Education in the MixKerala shares India’s higher education problems but has tried with some success to ameliorate them. The “affiliat-ing” system ties undergraduate colleges to universities that set examinations, impose a variety of rules, and regulate them. The University of Kerala, one among the first 16 universities established in India, is the state’s premier in-stitution. It has 198 affiliated colleges that educate around 100,000 students. Some of these colleges are located as far as 140 kilometers from the university campus. A major-ity of the colleges are private and managed by a variety of religious, social, and other nonprofit organizations. Many are “aided” and receive government funds; they tend to be the better ones in terms of infrastructure and facilities. The growth in recent years of private colleges, mainly in such fields as medicine, engineering, information technology, nursing, and management studies that receive no govern-ment funding—many of which are quasi-for-profit—has created problems for the university authorities as they are asked to provide affiliation to institutions that may be of questionable quality. Nearly half of the affiliated colleges—a total of 797 in the state—are controlled by private man-agements, mainly sponsored by the Christian or Muslim minority communities or individuals belonging to these communities.

Facilities at most of the colleges and in the university departments as well are well below international standards,


often with outdated laboratories and rudimentary informa-tion technology facilities and inadequate libraries. In ad-dition to supervising the colleges, the universities provide postbaccalaureate instruction. All postsecondary education in the state is in English.

Kerala’s Higher Education PoliciesThe state’s approach to higher education is somewhat unique in the Indian context. Most higher education in the state was at one time supervised and funded by the state government. However, this situation has been changing, especially during the last decade. Resource crunch and bud-get constraints have forced the universities to change priori-ties. While India’s central government has with a few ex-ceptions ignored Kerala, given its commitment to sponsor at least one central university in each of India’s states, the government plans are proceeding to build a central institu-tion in a rather isolated location in the northern part of the state. This development is not understood by most higher education experts in the state, since it is unlikely that such an institution located far from academic or urban centers can succeed.

In keeping with its egalitarian philosophy, the govern-ment has provided generally equal support to all of the uni-versities and has not identified any as a “flagship.” Thus, there are few nationally or internationally prominent uni-versities in the state. One exception is the Cochin University of Science and Technology. The central Ministry of Human Resource Development recognized the university’s excel-lence and supported upgrading it to the level of the Indian Institutes of Technology. However, a campaign against the conversion of the university into an IIT forced the authori-ties to shelve the plans. The Indian Institute of Space Sci-ence and Technology has been recently established by the central government in Thiruavananthpuram. The Sree Chi-tra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, is another exception; this institution has the status of a university and offers postdoctoral, doc-toral, and postgraduate courses in medical specialties and health care technology and is under the administrative con-trol of the Department of Science and Technology, Govern-ment of India. Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Thiruvananthapuram, established in 2008, can also be considered a nationally prominent institution. It is an autonomous institution affiliated to the Ministry of Hu-man Resources Development. As a matter of policy, Ker-ala might be well served if these institutions were closely linked or even merged so as to combine these high-quality institutions and produce a world-class scientific institution in the state.

Several of the arts and sciences undergraduate colleges that have a long historical tradition—such as University

College in Thiruvananthanpuram, the capital, or Mahara-ja’s College in Kochi—are able to attract a number of bright students. But these institutions’ facilities are far from world class. However, most of the top students prefer professional courses in engineering, medicine (which is an undergradu-ate subject area in India), and business. Currently there are 96 engineering colleges in Kerala. Almost 90 percent of them had started functioning during the last decade, and only 11 of these colleges are government sponsored. Of the 96 colleges, 60 of them are purely private institutions. In general, their facilities are no better than the average found in the state.

Kerala has instituted a few significant reforms—chang-es suggested by national authorities but not initiated widely so far. These innovations include a semester system and re-forms in the traditional undergraduate examinations. The idea is to provide better assessment through more frequent examinations and evaluations tied more closely to course content. This reform required significant changes in the way the curriculum was organized, how courses are taught, and how they are assessed. Policymakers hope that it will result in improvements in teaching. The Higher Education

Council was set up to provide advice to the state govern-ment, conduct research on higher education issues, and serve as a forum for discussion about higher education. The central government recommended that all of the states organize such agencies, but so far only a few states have done so. The council does not have the power to implement reforms and only makes recommendations to government and the universities.

Kerala, like all of the states, is grappling with the rapid and largely unregulated expansion of new private colleges and specialized postsecondary institutions. On the one hand, there is a need for greater access, and these new pri-vate colleges provide this. But on the other, many of them are of dubious quality, operate on the edges of quality con-trol, and are largely organized to earn a profit for the own-ers. They serve high-demand fields such as management, information technology, and related technical fields. A few are medical colleges. So far, a good deal of grumbling about

Kerala shares India’s higher education

problems but has tried with some suc-

cess to ameliorate them.


these institutions has taken place but little action to control them.

Although an increase in the number of higher educa-tion institutions and student enrollment over the last two decades has taken place, inequalities based on the quality of primary and secondary schooling have been on the rise during this period. One of the most observable effects of this change is in the relationship between type of schools attended and admission to professional colleges. This trend is evident in the outcome of medical-engineering entrance examinations conducted by the government. Entrance to the medical and engineering colleges in Kerala is largely based on an entrance examination conducted by the gov-ernment every year. However, students from the Central Board of Secondary Education affiliated schools and Coun-cil for the Indian School Certificate Examinations affiliated schools have a better chance to bag the top ranks of this examination. Most of these schools are in the unaided/for profit sector. However, more than 80 percent of the higher secondary students in the state are pursing studies in post-secondary institutions affiliated to the Directorate of High-er Secondary Education of the Government of Kerala.

The majority of the top-rank holders of the entrance examination for professional programs emerge from the middle and upper strata of the society. The parents have the financial capacity to send these students to entrance coaching centers. This has created a situation in which the entry routes to higher education are differentiated on the basis of wealth. Coupled with this, personal and paren-tal choices have become an important feature of Kerala’s higher education. Students and parents these days are quite conscious about the inseparable link between aca-demic choice and careers. The emergence of a new mid-dle class in Kerala society accentuated this phenomenon. Naturally, this period witnessed an increase in the num-ber of self-supporting students from Kerala going abroad to study.

A Way ForwardKerala quietly has provided acceptable-quality higher edu-cation, by Indian standards, to a remarkably large part of

its population. It has implemented several meaningful re-forms in recent years, and higher education remains an is-sue of concern for the government and the public at large. A few policy initiatives may be useful to further improve the system.

The state’s higher education institutions are largely similar in quality, focus, and funding. With the few excep-tions noted here, none of these stand out either within the state or nationally. A mass higher education system needs to be differentiated—with institutions serving different mis-sions, patterns of funding, and quality. Kerala needs at least one “world-class” university—an institution that can attract the best students in the state, be recognized as among the top universities in India, and gain visibility abroad as well. This strategy will not be easy since Kerala has a strong tra-dition of egalitarianism, but it is a necessary policy if the state is to fully participate in the global knowledge society of the 21st century. It is likely that the University of Kerala, perhaps merged with several high-profile scientific institu-tions located in the capital, is the logical choice, probably along with the Cochin University of Science and Technol-ogy. This does not mean that the other universities can be neglected. Some will focus largely on teaching and serving their specific regions, while a few, perhaps those focusing on science and technology, can retain some research mis-sion.

In common with all regions of India, the large number of colleges affiliated to universities need to be appropriately supervised but at the same time permitted leeway to start innovative programs and achieve a degree of autonomy. A special problem concerns the growing number of new pri-vate “unaided” colleges, a majority of which are for-profit. Perhaps an effective accrediting system, supervised by the Higher Education Council or some other governmental body, could provide a basic standard of quality for all of the colleges and remove some of the burden from the universi-ties.

Kerala’s universities have the potential of jump-starting the state’s move into the knowledge era. They can provide the training needed for a new generation of professionals ready to work in information technology and other knowl-edge industries. Kerala has the disadvantage of starting late. The giant info-tech superpower in Bangalore, for example, is far ahead—even though the first “technopark” in India was established in Thiruvananthapuram. But Kerala has a well-educated workforce, a tradition of hard work, and an ability to collaborate with people from many different backgrounds. An important step would be to immediately improve the quality of engineering education. The info-tech companies estimate that only one-fifth of engineering graduates can be immediately put to work; the rest need additional training. If Kerala can provide an engineering

The state’s approach to higher educa-

tion is somewhat unique in the Indian

context.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N22 Departments

education that can produce engineers who can be imme-diately put to work without expensive further education, it will immediately improve its prospects for luring high tech-nology to the state. Moreover, these graduates will be quite competitive on the international job market as well.

The state’s higher education future is complex but prac-tical. Expansion will continue, although the pressures may

be somewhat less than in other parts of India because of Kerala’s impressive access rates. Careful attention needs to be given to the organization of the higher education system. Some additional funds are required to transform at least one university into a research-intensive institution, while at the same time supporting a better-defined differentiated higher education system.

Brewer, Elizabeth, and Kiran Cunningham, eds. Integrating Study Abroad into the Cur-riculum. Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2009. 230 pp. $29.95 (pb) ISBN 978-1-57922-349-6. Web site: www.Styluspub com.

Writing from an American perspective, the authors provide a “how to” approach to study-abroad experiences for students. For study abroad, the themes discussed include preparatory courses, language courses, ser-vice learning, capacity building on campus, and others.

Chapman, David W., William K. Cummings, and Gerard A. Postiglione, eds. Crossing Bor-ders in East Asian Higher Education. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, 2010. 388 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-962-8093-98-4. Web site: www. hku.hk/cerc.

With a selection of essays on aspects of higher education in East Asia, this book fea-tures such topics as knowledge systems in East Asia, cross-border higher education in China, second-language acquisition, transna-tional–higher education in Japan and China, and dual-degree programs between Russia and China. The themes are all relating to international aspects of Asian higher educa-tion.

Cox, Rebecca D. The College Fear Factor: How Students and Professors Misunderstand One Another. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2009. 191 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-0-674-03548-5. Web site: www.hup.harvard.edu.

The focus of this book is on American community colleges, along with the culture of teaching and learning in these institutions. The author argues that teachers do not ad-equately understand intellectual and other needs of their students, and at the same

time, students may not be fully prepared for study. The book is based on interviews and observations.

Dill, David D., and Frans A. Van Vught, eds. National Innovation and the Academic Re-search Enterprise. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2010. 578 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-0-8018-9374-2. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

The increasingly close links between re-search done in universities and economic and social innovation in society are explored in this book. The academic research enterprise (the research focus of universities) is dis-cussed in terms of national innovation strat-egies and governmental policies in general. Most of the book consists of case studies of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, Finland, and others. The US states of California and Pennsylvania are also discussed.

Donn, Gary, and Yayha Al Manthri. Global-ization and Higher Education in the Arab Gulf States. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books, 2010. 176 pp. ₤24 (pb). ISBN 978-1-873927-31-1. Web site: www.symposium-books.co.uk.

Focusing on the Arab Gulf countries, this books discusses Oman in detail. The broad theme is how global influences affect higher education in the region. Special atten-tion is paid to curriculum reform and labor markets as well as the broader themes of glo-balization.

Eggins, Heather, ed. Access and Equity: Com-parative Perspectives. Rotterdam, Nether-lands: Sense, 2010. 169 pp. $45 (pb). ISBN 978-94-6091-184-2. Web site: www.sense-publishers.com.

A multidisciplinary look at the complex issues of access and equity in global higher education, this volume focuses on historical and cultural contexts, globalization and ac-cess, student-support mechanisms, interven-tion strategies, and related themes.

Fisher, Robert Leslie. Crippled at the Start-ing Gate—The Graduate Schools Created and Perpetuate the Gender Gap in Science and Engineering: What Can We do About It? Lan-ham, MD: Univ. Press of America, 2010. 205 pp. (pb). ISBN 978-0-7618-4911-7. Web site: www.univpress.com.

The author argues that in American graduate schools there has historically been discrimination against women. Men have been favored and treated better. He argues that the culture of American graduate schools must change to make the atmosphere more welcoming to women and members of ra-cial and ethnic minority groups. In addition, members of these groups need to be promot-ed to senior faculty positions.

Johnstone, D. Bruce, Madeleine B. d’Ambrosio, and Paul J. Yakoboski, eds. Higher Education in a Global Society. Chel-tenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2010. 224 (hb). ISBN 978-1-84844-752-3. Web site: www.e-elgar.com.

Sponsored by the TIAA-CREF Institute, this book considers the impact of globaliza-tion and internationalization on American higher education. Among the topics included are internationalizing the scholarly experi-ence of faculty, improving study abroad, bringing international students to American campuses, international research collabora-tion, and others.

New Publications

I N T E R N A T I O N A L H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 23Departments

In early July, the Center organized a successful three-day leadership seminar for 25 vice chancellors and rectors from Africa under the sponsorship of the Africa Development In-stitute, in Tunisia. CIHE director Philip Altbach and research associate Liz Reisberg, along with Professor Bruce Johnstone of SUNY-Buffalo and Professor Marijk van der Wende, the dean of Amsterdam University College, were the faculty for the seminar.

At the invitation of the government of Kerala in south India, Philip Altbach spent two weeks as an Erudite Schol-ar offering lectures and discussing higher education issues with academic and government colleagues. He appeared on television several times and had a chance to travel to several universities in the state. He also consulted with the Azim Premji Foundation in Bangalore, relating to their plans for a new university devoted to education. Altbach will participate in a conference on world-class universities in Brussels, Bel-gium, sponsored by the Academic Cooperation Association in October and will also speak at a conference of directors of university-based institutes of advanced studies in Freiburg, Germany. Laura E. Rumbley, a former CIHE research associ-ate, is now deputy director at the Academic Cooperation As-sociation.

CIHE’s collaboration with the State University-Higher School of Economics in Moscow, Russia, continues. Our joint-research project on academic remuneration worldwide will result in a working conference in Moscow in October. The project involves researchers from 30 countries and will result in a new book comparing academic compensation

worldwide. CIHE graduate research associate Iván Pacheco and research associate Liz Reisberg are involved with orga-nizing the conference and will participate in it.

The Center has launched a new Web site that takes full advantage of Web 2.0. The new site offers a content man-agement system that provides visitors with a more powerful interface to search the vast resources that CIHE has made available by way of our Web site. In addition to Internation-al Higher Education, we host information about other freely available publications and reports, a calendar of conferences and seminars, a database of experts and scholars on key is-sues in our field, a directory of relevant journals and research centers, and many other useful resources for scholars of in-ternational higher education.

We welcome Yukiko Shimmi from Japan, a new gradu-ate research assistant and doctoral student in higher educa-tion. Ms. Shimmi recently completed her master’s degree at the University of Minnesota. Anna Glass, a graduate research assistant last year at CIHE, has joined the staff of UNESCO’s division of higher education in Paris.

Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution, by Philip G. Altbach, Liz Reisberg, and Laura E. Rumbley—a book prepared for the UNESCO world confer-ence on higher education—is being published in a commer-cial edition by Sense Publishers. It has been translated into Arabic and will be published soon by the Saudi Arabian Min-istry of Higher Education. Leadership for World-Class Univer-sities: Challenges for Developing Countries, edited by Philip G. Altbach, will be published by Routledge in 2011.

Johnstone, D. Bruce, and Pamela N. Mar-cuucci. Financing Higher Education World-wide: Who Pays? Who Should Pay? Balti-more: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2010. 322 pp. $30 (pb). ISBN 978-0-9458-9. Web site: www.press.jhu.edu.

One of the few international analyses of issues of funding postsecondary educa-tion, this volume stresses cost sharing and related financial issues. Among the themes discussed are the spread and nature of tu-ition fees, student-loan schemes in practice, means-testing and parental contributions to higher education, and the implications of fi-nancial austerity on higher education.

Johns, Adrian. Piracy: The Intellectual Prop-erty Wars from Gutenberg to Gates. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2010. 623 pp. $35 (hb). ISBN 978-0-226-40118-8. Web site:

www.press.uchicago.edu.While not specifically focusing on higher

education, the book has great relevance for scholars worldwide. The focus of the volume is a broad historical analysis of intellectual property and piracy of books, ideas, and sci-ence. Issues include the development of copyright, piracy in the Enlightenment, the nature of science and intellectual property, and piracy in the digital age.

Kehm, Barbara M., and Bjørn Stensaker, eds. University Rankings, Diversity, and the New Landscape of Higher Education. Rotter-dam, Netherlands: Sense, 2009. 187 pp. $45 (pb). ISBN 978-90-8790-814-0. Web site: www.sensepublishers.com.

A wide-ranging global consideration of academic rankings in their various mani-festations, this book provides unique over-

views on this controversial topic. Among the themes considered are a global survey of rankings and league tables, reputation indica-tors and rankings, the influence of rankings, rankings and the impact on university reform, the stratification of European higher educa-tion, and others..

Lazerson, Marvin. Higher Education and the American Dream: Success and Its Discontents. Budapest: Central European Univ. Press, 2010. 221 pp. (hb). ISBN 978-963-9776-79-1. Web site: www.ceupress.com.

A critical analysis of contemporary American higher education, this book focus-es on issues such as vocationalism, the rise of managerialism, the role of the disciplines, and others.

News of the Center

Center for International Higher EducationBoston CollegeCampion HallChestnut Hill, MA 02476USA

PRESORTEDFIRST-CLASS MAIL

U.S. POSTAGEPAID

N. READING MAPERMIT 258

Editor

Philip G. Altbach

Publications Editor

Edith S. Hoshino

Editorial assistant

Salina Kopellas

Editorial officE

Center for International Higher EducationCampion HallBoston College Chestnut Hill, MA 02467USA

Tel: (617) 552-4236Fax: (617) 552-2499E-mail: [email protected]://www.bc.edu/cihe

We welcome correspondence, ideas for articles, and reports. If you would like to subscribe, please send an e-mail to: [email protected], including your position (graduate stu-dent, professor, administrator, policymaker, etc.), and area of interest or expertise. There is no charge for a subscription.

ISSN: 1084-0613©Center for International Higher Education

The Center For International Higher Education (CIHE)

The Boston College Center for International Higher Education brings an international consciousness to the analysis of higher education. We believe that an international perspective will contribute to elightened policy and practice. To serve this goal, the Center publishes the International Higher Education quar-terly newsletter, a book series, and other publica-tions; sponsors conferences; and welcomes visiting scholars. We have a special concern for academic in-stitutions in the Jesuit tradition worldwide and, more

broadly, with Catholic universities.

The Center promotes dialogue and cooperation among academic institutions throughout the world. We believe that the future depends on effective col-laboration and the creation of an international com-munity focused on the improvement of higher educa-tion in the public interest.

CIHE Web SiteThe different sections of the Center Web site support the work of scholars and professionals in interna-tional higher education, with links to key resources in the field. All issues of International Higher Education are available online, with a searchable archive. In ad-dition, the International Higher Education Clearing-house (IHEC) is a source of articles, reports, trends, databases, online newsletters, announcements of upcoming international conferences, links to profes-

sional associations, and resources on developments in the Bologna Process and the GATS. The Higher Education Corruption Monitor provides information from sources around the world, including a selection of news articles, a bibliography, and links to other agencies. The International Network for Higher Edu-cation in Africa (INHEA), is an information clearing-house on research, development, and advocacy ac-tivities related to postsecondary education in Africa.

The Program in Higher Education at the Lynch

School of Education, Boston CollegeThe Center is closely related to the graduate program in higher education at Boston College. The program offers master’s and doctoral degrees that feature a social science–based approach to the study of higher education. The Administrative Fellows initiative pro-vides financial assistance as well as work experience in a variety of administrative settings. Specializations are offered in higher education administration, stu-dent affairs and development, and international edu-cation. For additional information, please contact Dr. Karen Arnold ([email protected]) or visit our Web site: http://www.bc.edu/schools/lsoe/.

OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE DO NOT NECESSARILY RE-

FLECT THE VIEWS OF THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL

HIGHER EDUCATION.

international higher education umber all...one of the most obvious changes has dealt with the...

Documents